[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Study Raises Projection For 'Dirty Bomb' Toll
Please, consider:
a) poor control in Brazil
b) poor control by user
In the First case we can consider general context, and this is not correct.
Poor control by user you can find anywhere in many developed countries,
including USA
AN OVERVIEW OF MANAGING THE U.S. RADIATION PROTECTION PROGRAM CONCERNING
GENERALLY-LICENSED SOURCES AND DEVICES
Commissioner Greta Joy Dicus, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Washington, D.C. 20555
Keynote Presentation at the
10th Annual International Radiation Protection Association Conference
May 15, 2000
Hiroshima, Japan
...............
"U.S. operational experience with radioactive materials includes few
accidents with generally-licensed devices, and only five have resulted in
potential radiation overexposures to the general public since 1989. The U.S.
metal recycling industry has been particularly affected by losses and thefts
of radioactive sources, some of which were generally-licensed and have
subsequently become mixed with metal scrap destined for recycling."
"For a smelting event involving a large radiation source (believed to not be
a generally licensed device) one U.S. steel mills incurred an average cost
of approximately US$ ten million, while yet in another case the cost
approached US$ 23 million."
"Lost, stolen, and abandoned generally-licensed sources or devices appearing
in recycled metals constitute a worldwide problem. Thirty other smelting
events have been reported in at least eighteen other countries (1). Others
may have occurred but have not come to our attention or cannot be
confirmed."
----------------------------------------------------------
USA PERSPECTIVES
SAFETY & SECURITY OF RADIOACTIVE SOURCES
BY GRETA JOY DICUS
IAEA BULLETIN, 41/3/1999
............................
"Each year, the NRC receives about 200 reports of lost, stolen or abandoned
radioactive sources and devices. It is important to note that such reports
are received only when licensees recall that they have a source, know that
it is lost or stolen, know that there is a requirement to report the loss or
theft, and make that report."
"In some cases, the loss of control of radioactive sources resulted in
radiation overexposures of unsuspecting members of the public. For example,
in 1979, an unshielded 1 GBq (28 Ci) iridium-192 industrial radiography
source was accidentally left at a temporary job site in California. A
worker, not knowing what itwas, picked it up and placed it into a back
pocket of his trousers. The dose to his buttock exceeded 200 Sv(20,000 rem).
In 1992, a 0.14 GBq (3.7 Ci) iridium-192 brachytherapy source was accidently
disconnected from the cable attaching it to a remote afterloader while it
was emplaced in a patient. The source eventually became dislodged from the
patient together with surgical dressings. The discarded dressings containing
the source were sent to a disposal facility which routinely conducted
radiation surveillance of incoming waste. Radiation from the source was
detected and it was thus discovered the patient died from complications
resulting from the overdose and 90 members of the public were accidentally
exposed to the source.
In 1996, industrial radiography devices were stolen....."
The above examples doesn't mean poor control by Regulatory Authority.
So, I can't agree with your expression: "poor control in Brazil"
Jose Julio Rozental
joseroze@netvision.net.il
Israel
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stewart Faber" <radproject@optonline.net>
To: "Stewart Farber" <farbersa@optonline.net>; "Hart, Tim P GS (RASO)"
<harttp@RASO.NAVY.MIL>; "Radsafe" <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>; "Jose Julio
Rozental" <joseroze@netvision.net.il>
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 7:41 PM
Subject: Re: Study Raises Projection For 'Dirty Bomb' Toll
> 1/15/04 9:47:36 AM, Jose Julio Rozental <joseroze@netvision.net.il> wrote:
>
> [EXCERPT INCLUDED FROM MY ORIGINAL POST:]
> >> The fact that the Goaiana incident was not a group of "workers"
servicing a
> >> teletherapy unit, but a group of thieves/scavangers who were ripping
apart
> >>an abandoned teletherapy unit due to poor controls in Brazil of unused
> >>medical equipment [at the time] alone should be corrected by the W.
Post, along
> >>with the clear errors in the number of people seriously injured.
>
> [COMMENT BY JOSE ROZENTAL]:
> >About the topic "poor control", I don't agree, this is not correct. I
was
> >Director of Department of Nuclear Installations and Material for 18 years
> >and among my responsibilities, one was the control of radioactive
sources.
> >About Goiania, as before mentioned, I was sent there by the Regulatory
> >Authority as General Coordinator to Respond the Emergency. I was the
first
> >person in Brazil to be informed about the event by the Health Secretary
of
> >State and in the same day I travel to Goiania. There were 5
investigations
> >on the Goiania Accident in Brazil.
> >a) Police in Goiania,
> >b) State General Attorney,
> >c) State Congress,
> >d) Federal Police,
> >e) Federal Court of Justice
> >
> >The dimension in Goiania was lack to follow good procedures and I agree
> >control by users.The Users were penalized by the Federal Court of
Justice.
> >
> >Anyone that wish correct information about Goiania, please write to me,
no
> >one better than me know data about Goiania Accident.
> >
> >Jose Julio Rozental
> >joseroze@netvision.net.il
> >Israel
> >
> ============
> Dr. Rozental:
> Your comment above leaves me a bit confused. I wasn't in any way trying to
criticize overall regulations
> or procedures in Brazil [as they existed at the time] in my original
comment, only that the fact that a
> group of illiterate scavengers could come to possess an unused teletherapy
unit implies a clear failure
> of controls [at least by the user who owned the unit]. You write above the
the Goiania event was due to
> "lack to follow good procedure and I agree control by users." So my
comment that the incident was:
>
> "due to poor controls in Brazil of unused medical equipment [at the time]"
>
> seem in agreement. Thus, I'm not clear why you write my basic comment on
this point is not correct and
> you don't agree. Perhaps I'm missing some fine point of semantics.
>
> I completely recognize your expertise and involvement in dealing with this
unfortunate event and have the
> highest regard for your thoughts on this matter.
>
> Thanks,
> Stewart Farber
>
>
>
>
************************************************************************
You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To
unsubscribe, send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu Put the
text "unsubscribe radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail,
with no subject line. You can view the Radsafe archives at
http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/